Colonel Pat Lang's Outpost - "A Committee of Correspondence"

Posts from November 2007

28 November 2007

"But the two leaders sprinkled their speeches with references to diplomatic code words that point to the tough path ahead. Abbas, for instance, referred to a U.N. resolution that Palestinians believe gives them the right to return to their land in Israel, while Olmert mentioned a 2004 letter that Bush gave former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon that said that such refugee returns were unrealistic.

In his own speech, Bush sketched a much more ominous view of the region than Olmert and Abbas. "The battle is underway for the future of the Middle East, and we must not cede victory to the extremists," he said. "With their violent actions and contempt for human life, the extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the Holy Land. If this vision prevails, the future of the region will be endless terror, endless war and endless suffering." " WaPo

25 November 2007

"In a move that could bolster the credibility of the Bush administration's upcoming Mideast peace talks, Syria has decided to send a representative to attend the conference this week in Annapolis, Md., the country's official news agency, Sana, reported today.

Deputy foreign minister Faysal Moqdad will attend Tuesday's talks as head of a Syrian delegation, the news agency reported. Syria decided to attend after gaining confirmation that the disputed Golan Heights, which Israel seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, would be on the agenda, a ranking Syrian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

"We received what we have asked for, which is the schedule, and on it is the Syrian-Israeli track," said the official. "Based on that, we decided to go."" LA Times

----------------------------------------------------------

Syria has been seeking a way to talk seriously to Washington for long time. Israel's willingness to discuss the return of Syrian territory on the Golan Heights provides a chance to do just that.

I am still of the opinion that little will result from the Palestinian-Israeli meeting at Annapolis, but there is a real chance that the Syrian aspect of the festering mess that is the Middle East could be cleared up in the near future.

Syria is extremely uncomfortable with its hostile non-relationship with the US and would go a long way in attempting to resolve that situation.

Lebanon, the "alliance" with Iran, past support of terrorist groups, all of those things could be "in play" if the United States (and Israel) accept the concept of real reconciliation with Syria. pl

22 November 2007

"“I don’t cut like a chef, I cut like a butcher,” said Ray Venezia, the meat director for the four Fairway markets, a third-generation butcher and one of the biggest turkey purveyors in New York City.

Instead of slicing the meat from the roast at the table, Mr. Venezia’s carving protocol calls for the biggest pieces, the breasts and the thighs, to be removed whole, then boned and sliced on a cutting board. “Trying to carve from the carcass is like trying to cut it off a beach ball: it’s all curved surfaces and it moves around under the knife,” he said. “Give me a flat cutting board any time.”

Roger Bassett, the owner of the Original Turkey in Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, uses the same method for the 30 turkeys carved and served at his store every day. “Cutting a turkey the traditional way, where you leave the meat on the bird and cut down, you can’t cut across the grain,” he said. “The pieces you end up with are all stringy because the fibers are long instead of short.”

Mr. Venezia demonstrated the method to me twice last week; I then tested it on two roast chickens, and met with howling success.

It is important to start with a turkey that has rested for at least 20 minutes; 40 is even better, so that the meat has firmed enough to cut cleanly. Mr. Venezia does not use a carving fork. (“Why pierce the meat more than you have to and let the juices run out?”) Instead, he holds the bird in place with one hand and uses the other for cutting. " NY Times

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Do I carve the bird this way? No, but it sounds like a good idea. We wish you all a great celebration of this festive day first celebrated at Jamestown, Virginia. pl

21 November 2007

"Though most Lebanese have grown used to America's pro-Israel policy, they are now watching with anxiety as the U.S. emphasizes Hezbollah's role as a surrogate for Iran and Syria. Lebanese have little sympathy for Iran and even less for Syria, not just because of Syria's three-decade occupation of Lebanon but also because of the recent assassinations widely attributed to Syria, notably of the popular Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Still, the Lebanese are outraged at America's use of their soil, in war and politics, as the playing field for its ongoing feuds with Iran and Syria.

On Nov. 8, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch made clear to Congress that the U.S. opposed the election of a president by any consensus that included Hezbollah. Under Lebanese law, a presidential candidate needs to win the support of two-thirds of the parliament to be elected on the first ballot, but after that, a simple majority suffices. Welch suggested that the U.S. would use its economic and political muscle to back a candidate that it considered favorable to U.S. interests. The U.S. strategy, as the Lebanese see it, is to promote a narrow, anti-Hezbollah majority on the second ballot.

Most Lebanese seem to be holding their breath, denying that civil war looms. The many private militias that were primed for battle in 1975 no longer exist, they point out. Even though Hezbollah has the strongest armed force in the country -- stronger than the Lebanese army, which mirrors the society's schisms -- it shows no sign of preparing for a putsch. Most Lebanese tell themselves the factions will remain stubborn until the last minute, then make a deal. Viorst

------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes, the magic of "the deal." This more or less sums up the Lebanese mind set with regard to politics, business, etc. That, and the lesser magic of conspicuous consumption.

I do not believe that there will be another Lebanese civil war. The Lebanese still remember the last one all too vividly for them to soon go collectively mad as they did the last time. The Israel-Hizbullah war of 2006 refreshed that memory for them to something sticky, brown and still drying. It will take a generation of quiet for the Lebanese to have a renewed taste for the mayhem that destroys friend and foe alike. Maybe that was the point of the Israeli campaign? Maybe not.

No. No civil war. Instead, look to see the further disintegration of civil society under the pressure of foreign political interventionism. The Lebanese like a good conspiracy so well that they are perpetually willing to divide themselves into factions and groupings of factions allied to foreign players. They really do not seem to know how to live without that kind of activity.

19 November 2007

"Pat,
This is an attempt to respond to the reactions to my brief comment from a few days ago.
Best,
Amatzia

“[Ricks and DeYoung]’s article nowhere mentions the plight of the over 2 million internal refugees in Iraq”.

I agree. If both kinds of refugees, 4m of them in total, start going back home, though, I am less worried that the US commanders. They will do this only once they ascertain that security is reasonably back and that their neighbors calmed down. House ownership in Iraq is still valid and most of the refugees took with them the title deeds (Qushans, Tabus) so at least legal problems like in Kirkuk, where Saddam rounded up people and drove them out, will not represent a major issue. Judging by similar experiences in Kosovo and Serbia, the returnees also are very likely to support each other, Sunnis, Shiis, Kurds, Christians (if the latter go back at all) because they will have a common cause. And the government, frail as it is, will try to help as well. So it will not be easy, but I don’t see another humanitarian catastrophe. Incidentally, the Catholic St John's Church in Baghdad’s al-Dura neighborhood reopened a couple of days ago. This is a very positive sign of life returning to a more normal existence. However, there are around 50,000 Iraqis who will never be able to go home. These are the educated – in large part professional – Iraqis who collaborated with the US armed forces and US-sponsored contractors either as interpreters or as professional aids. Most of them are in Amman now. When they go back they will be killed by the Sunni and Shii militias. Their savings are running out. There were three attempts already on the life of a good friend of mine, an Iraqi American engineer who has spent the last four years in Basra, working with British military engineers on the barely-existing infrastructure there. He will leave with the British. He has a place to go, but those stuck in Jordan are stranded. Amatzia Baram"

"The Cabinet vote took place ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas later in the day. The two men were trying to break a deadlock in preparations for the U.S.-hosted peace summit, which is expected to take place in Annapolis, Md., next week.

Israel sees the conference primarily as a ceremonial launching pad for new peace efforts, while the Palestinians want a more detailed plan for how post-conference talks will proceed.

Seeking to drum up support for the conference, Olmert is heading to Egypt on Tuesday for talks with President Hosni Mubarak, his office said. Arab League members are to decide on Friday whether they will join the gathering. High-level Arab attendance is seen as crucial to the success of nascent peace moves." Yahoo News

--------------------------------------------------------

Once again, we are presented with the inability of these parties to the Palestinian-Israeli struggle to accept or even comprehend the difference in approach of the other side.

The Israelis want to see the Annapolis meeting as an event in which the Americans make the Palestinians available for a free-flowing give and take that leads to an agreement that is some sort of compromise.

The Palestinians see the process as one in which the American super-power gives its blessing to the rough outline of what a final settlement will be.

In pursuit of that vision, the Palestinians want there to be a document agreed on between them and the Israelis which gives the shape of what the final settlement will be and they want it in advance. Anything else they see as merely another trick.

As though to make any agreement even more difficult, Olmert's government wants the Palestinians to make a public statement re-newing their previous de facto recognition of the existence of Israel. In this new statement they want a specific acceptance of Israel's nature as a Jewish state. This is very difficult for the Paelstinians since their aspiration for their own state is for a government that is, at least in theory, religiously neutral.

Bottom Line: Annapolis will amount to very little.

If the parties want to move forward towards a state of existence in which everyone can live reasonably, then they must give up their maximalist positions, accept the idea of a series of truces (hudna), and engage Egypt and other regional "players" in dealing with the extremists among the Palestinians.

Even then, progress toward any kind of real Peace will be slow. Struggle of this sort between two peoples for the possession of a single piece of land are not solved until the fires of competitive inter-communal feeling are burned out through struggle. My sense of this is that the two peoples have not reached that level of emotional surfeit. pl

18 November 2007

Jim Herring has written from Oklahoma to provide the following analysis and rich trove of documents concerning atomic events in Iran. pl

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Remember how the bush-cheney cabal was quite critical of this agreement with iran and has declared that even iran's full compliance with this agreement won't suffice. that seems to be the reason that we have seen so much el-baradei bashing recently.

Iran IS cooperating with the iaea as requested, and the info that iran has/is providing IS consistant with the iaea findings. in short, a positive report which also makes no mention of any nuclear weapons programs or any such stuff.

four points to keep in mind with the report:

IRAN ISIN COMPLIANCE WITH NPT

'UNDECLARED ACTIVITIES' AND THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL -- the iaea has found NO EVIDENCE of a nuclear weapons program, the iaea can't say that iran's nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful since the iaea can't verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in iran. the report requests that iran once again implement the additional protocol. keep in mind:

the iaea doesn't veirty the absence of undeclared nuclear activities for any nation unless they have signed and ratified the additional protocol. according to the iaea there are currently 40 other nations for which the iaea can't similary verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities. i.e. egypt (which rice recently lauded as a 'model' nuclear program) have refused to even sign the additional protocol, unlike iran.

iran voluntarily implemented the additional protocol by allowing more stringent inspections for 2 years during the course of the paris agreement negotiations with the eu3 (even though iran wasn't legally obligated to do so) -- and still no evidence of nuclear weapons was found in iran. the 'stuff' the bush-cheney cabal a.k.a. admin. has given the iaea of 'secret' iranian nuclear facilities had been BOGUS [ see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAR681.DTL&feed=rss.news ]. iran has stopped providing that additional level of cooperation and stopped voluntarily implementing the additional protocol when THE EU TRIED TO CHEAT IRAN in the the paris agreement negotiations. iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to ratify and implement the additional protocol once its nuclear rights are recognized.

issues resolved -- the issue of iran's experiments with plutonium has been resolved. this particular isn't mentioned in the nov 07 report. but the modalities agreement of aug 07 stated that such had been resolved.

outstanding issues -- traces of highly enriched uranium where were found in iran, but to date iran's statements about those 'traces' have been verified by the iaea to be accurate [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447_pf.html ] the traces in question were attributable to contamination from importedcentrifuge parts.iran doesn't have the capacity to make highly enriched uranium, it barely manages to make low level uranium.

no suspension of enrichment. iran's enrichment process is fully monitored by the iaea and determined fully legal on iran's part." Jim Herring

15 November 2007

Between 1920 and 1924 the Shi'is of Iraq spilled a lot of blood in fighting the British. Their leading clerics under the leadership of Grand Ayat Allah Shirazi called for jihad and even after the collapse of the armed revolt in October 1920 they continued to object ferociously to any cooperation with the Brits. They were eventually exiled to India as a result. In June 1921 the Brits brought the Sunni Emir Faisal from the Hejaz and in August they anointed him as King of Iraq. They made up their minds: they turned to the Sunni community for cooperation. The latter, albeit with some exceptions, were pragmatic enough to accept the balance of power and act accordingly.

Iraq became Sunni dominated all the way to 2003. One of the ironies of history is that in the 1930s the Shi'i religious leadership turned a number of times to the Brits to protect them against the discrimination and oppression of the Sunni-led state. In the mid-1930s they even asked the Brits to abolish the formal independent status of Iraq and re-impose a fully-fledged British Mandate. But of no avail.

At least one Shi'i leader today is warning his community that the same scenario may be repeated if the Shi'i community does not know how to work with the US. But both the Shi'i leadership and grassroots are adamant on keeping the Sunnis out in the cold. At long last the US commanders found a common language with many Sunni tribal shaykhs and warlords and support them. It is quite possible to my mind that if the Shi'i leaders, between Maliki and Sistani, don't show more flexibility and civil courage and if Muqtada does not cease his marauding mischief the Shi'is will lose Iraq again. It may not become a Sunni-led centralized state as it was before 2003, but it will descend into chaos and the Shi'i parts (and maybe Baghdad

too) will come under Iranian hegemony. This is something most Shi'i Arabs are far from enthusiastic about.

"Indeed, some US Army officers now talk more sympathetically about former insurgents than they do about their ostensible allies in the Shiite-led central government. "It is painful, very painful," dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials, said Army Lt. Col. Mark Fetter. As for the Sunni fighters who for years bombed and shot U.S. soldiers and now want to join the police, Fetter shrugged. "They have got to eat," he said over lunch in the 1st Cavalry Division's mess hall here. "There are so many we've detained and interrogated, they did what they did for money."

The best promise for breaking the deadlock would be holding provincial elections, officers said -- though they recognize that elections could turn bloody and turbulent, undercutting the fragile stability they now see developing in Iraq.

"The tipping point that I've been looking for as an intel officer, we are there," said one Army officer here who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position. "The GOI [government of Iraq] and ISF [Iraqi security forces] are at the point where they can make it or break it." " Tom Ricks and Karen de Young

----------------------------------------------------------

Great Minds, etc......

It sure is a shame to have wasted so much and so many getting to a situation which was always available to us in Iraq. We, more or less, created the phenomenon of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq through our ham-handed treatment of the Sunni Arab population of the country. We literally drove them into the arms of the takfiri jihadis.

Now, their disgust with the fanatics and a more enlightened policy on our part have made it possible for the greater part of the Sunni Arabs to part company with our true enemies.

As Ricks writes in this article, it is now up to the Iraqi Government. Do they want to try to re-build the kind of condominium of communities that produced mixed marriages and mixed residence or do they want to "bet the farm" on the new social order that the CPA and the Chalabi crowd (there and here) installed?

I sympathize with those like Abu Aardvark (Lynch) who would like to see a unitary state in Iraq that receives the meek submission of the various groups. In fact, that was never going to happen in Iraq. The state and the national identity were too tentative and fragile to survive the battering that we inflicted on it. There is a chance now of restoring national unity on the basis of bargaining (deal-making) and power sharing across ethno-sectarian and regional lines.

If the Baghdad government seizes that chance then a new Iraq can emerge. If the government does not, then the stage is set for a long drama of internal and external conflict. pl

14 November 2007

It is now clear that the tactic of weaning tribal and village support away from Sunni insurgent groups is working quite well. With a minimum of babble about the "freedom agenda" the armed forces are going about the business of using existing local leadership and group identity to pit traditionalist and secularist Sunni potential against takfiri jihadist groups in western and central Iraq. Money, a recognized status as part of a winning combination, a certain amount of protection from the rapacity of the Shia run police, all of those things contribute to the ability of US commanders to attract the willing cooperation of tribal sheikhs, village mukhtars and provincial politicians. In Iraq tribal identity is so pervasive in much of the country that the influence of these networks of real or fictive kinship can not be ignored. In some cases the Dulaimi relationships of the leaders are clearly a major factor. Tribal groups like the Shammar, who stand outside that grouping should not be ignored either.

Diyala, Salahuddin and the area just south of Baghdad are proving to be fertile ground for application of methods of influence and control as old as the tribes themselves. It continues to be ironic that many in the US government think that they have discovered something "new" in these methods.

In these stories from the LA Times, the process of "cat herding" is well depicted as well as the resulting generation of combat power in defense of village and small town life. "Concerned Local Citizens" must sound amusing in Arabic.

All of this is to the good, and such developments can be seen as setting the scene for a gradual but steady withdrawal of US ground forces down to the short term residual force I have written of before.

BUT, will the government that we Americans largely created (purple thumbs and all) prove equal to the task of re-integrating all these Sunni Arab "ralliers" into the national body politic? If the government can do that, then there is likely to be a future for a united Iraq. If not, what? An inevitable military coup? De facto partition? It is not yet clear what that future will be.. pl

13 November 2007

"Israel and its chief ally the United States charge that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover to develop atomic weapons -- claims that Tehran flatly denies.Senior Israeli army intelligence officer Yossi Beidetz told parliament's foreign affairs and defence ministry that Iran could acquire the bomb by 2009."Assuming Iran is not faced with difficulties, the most severe scenario is that Iran could have a nuclear bomb by the end of 2009," Beidetz was quoted by committee members as saying.Israel, which belongs to the IAEA but has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is widely considered to be the Middle East's sole -- if undeclared -- nuclear-armed nation.It considers Iran its chief enemy after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.Last month, on a tour of UN Security Council members to push for tougher sanctions against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also criticised the IAEA chief."If ElBaradei thinks that an Iranian bomb in three years time does not bother him, it certainly worries me, even extremely," Olmert said in France."It would be better if ElBaradei made an effort to prevent them from obtaining a bomb."ElBaradei said in an interview with France's Le Monde newspaper that Iran would need "between three and eight years" to develop a nuclear bomb and that there were was no immediate threat."I want to get people away from the idea that Iran represents a clear and present danger and that we're now facing the decision whether to bombard Iran or let them have the bomb. We're not in that situation at all," he said. " Yahoo News

--------------------------------------------------------------

It is increasingly clear that Israel's fear of an annihilating Iranian "first strike" on its handful of cities is driving the world towards the possibility of another war in the Middle East.

Israeli government strategic thinking does not include a reliance on MAD (mutual assured destruction) as a basis for nuclear deterrence. The Israelis reason that their population would not survive a nuclear first strike. The list of targeted cities would be small and the same cities might be targeted several times, The gamble that anti-missile defenses would defeat such an attack is not acceptable to the Israelis. The idea that a retaliatory second strike (by them or the Americans) would destroy the attacker means little to them since their population would be gone.

Several key questions arise because of that expressed Israeli belief:

- What are the actual time lines of the putative Iranian nuclear and missile programs? The basic question is; "How long until the Iranians could have a sufficient force of DELIVERABLE nuclear weapons?" The Israelis talk about Iranian nuclear weapons in 2009. Do they really mean that or are they talking about an experimental detonation?

- Do the Iranians really possess the industrial capacity to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons and to "mate" them to ballistic missiles?

- Are the Iranians "rational actors" in making strategic decisions or are they driven by messianic religious impulses?

- Is Israel's principal concern fear of an actual Iranian strike at some time in the future or is the main worry the loss of strategic influence and "clout" that would follow upon the possession of such weapons by the Iranians?

These are the kinds of question that should be considered. Instead, the world is subjected to propaganda and information operations designed to push public opinion toward another war. pl

11 November 2007

"The BBC reported that the pope “admired the statue but merely touched the sword.” I think it is a great thing these two men met, and that King Abdullah came bearing gifts. But what would have really caught my attention — and the world’s — would have been if King Abdullah had presented the pope with something truly daring: a visa.

You see, the king of Saudi Arabia, also known as the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, can visit the pope in the Vatican. But the pope can’t visit the king of Saudi Arabia in the Vatican of Islam — Mecca. Non-Muslims are not allowed there. Moreover, it is illegal to build a church, a synagogue or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, or to practice any of these religions publicly.

As the BBC noted, “some Christian worship services are held secretly, but the government has been known to crack down on them, or deport Filipino workers if they hold even private services. ... The Saudi authorities cite a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that only Islam can be practiced in the Arabian Peninsula.”" Friedman

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Friedman is hard at work in this column (as usual) at convincing humanity of its homogeneous future. He desperately wants to see mankind in this way and hopes and hopes that the sense of separateness that prevails in so many people across the world is going to disappear soon. One wonders if he is thinking of ALL groups that way. This egregiously utopian view of the future places him squarely in the Jacobin neocon "camp." There is no real evidence that this process is approaching "fruition" or even that it is seriously underway in many parts of the world. Economic integration and a desire to enjoy the benefits of technology do not necessarily lead to cultural homogenization. Some people prefer their traditional ways. Our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last five years should have taught us that, but it has not. In the case of Friedman his insistence on this idea, despite all evidence to the contrary, is special pleading whether he realizes that or not. Since he expects that mankind in all its variety will come increasingly to see its differences as unimportant it is natural that he should dream of a future in which the Saudi king would invite the Catholic Pope to Saudi Arabia. Friedman has been in Saudi Arabia many times and should know that popular opinion there would overwhelmingly reject such an idea, but, that matters not to him. He continues to pursue his dream.

David Brooks of the New York Times remarked on the "Newshour" a while back that "people" do not care about theology. By this he meant that Governor Romney's chances of becoming president of the United States are not damaged by his adherence to the Mormon religion. Brooks said that what "people" care about is the social behavior of the members of religious bodies and that since Mormons are notably responsible and patriotic folk, the general public would not care about what it is that they profess as divine truth.

Brooks and Friedman have missed something in their discussions of religion. They have missed a simple truth. MOST PEOPLE WHO PROFESS RELIGION ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH OF THEIR GROUP'S TEACHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE MEANING OF EXISTENCE. They do not see their sect, denomination, church, etc. as a mere vehicle for the expression of social concern for the welfare of others.

Members of those groups (if they are truly members and not just "life cycle" auxiliaries) are capable of accepting each other as "good people" and fellow citizens. They are NOT CAPABLE of accepting the truth of groups who deny the essential beliefs of their own group.

That is what was meant in the recent pronouncement from Rome of the limits of Christian-Muslim dialog. Dialog among all religious groups is desirable as a means of establishing a harmony of the peoples, but there are limits imposed by THEOLOGY beyond which such discussions can not progress.

09 November 2007

"A former Navy survival instructor subjected to waterboarding as part of his military training told Congress yesterday that the controversial tactic should plainly be considered torture and that such a method was never intended for use by U.S. interrogators because it is a relic of abusive totalitarian governments.

Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, likened waterboarding to drowning and said those who experience it will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless." Josh White

I would like to know in what universe waterboarding would not be considered torture. Perhaps it was the universe inhabited by the KGB, the Gestapo or the Tonton Macoutes. I would like to stay out of that universe.

I have thought from the beginning of this horror that many of these interrogation "techniques" were imported from the SERE schools and had not been US interrogation methods. I still think that.

I believe I know Nance. If it is the man I am thinking of he is not exactly a sissy. Actually, he is nothing like a sissy.

I am always "impressed" by the "heros" who say resolutely (with steely glint) "Sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do..." Mostly, the people who say things like that have never done anything except talk tough and make money (maybe). Mostly, the people who say that kind of thing want someone else to do "what a man's gotta do." Mostly, they want people like me or the people who used to work for me to do it. Mostly, the "tough guys" would throw up if they saw what they like to babble about.

Waterboarding is worse than a crime. It is stupid. (That was a quiz. 10 points for recognizing the quote) As Nance says in the article, when you are being drowned, you will say anything, anything, anything.... Surely that should lead to the conclusion that, at the very least, it is useless to waterboard people. Useless, unless you happen to be a sadist who just likes doing things like that without regard to rational thinking. People like me are given to rational thinking and moderation in action. That's what the word "professional" implies. Waterboarding should not be something that the United states allows, EVER.

In extremis, I might do something really beastly to someone to satisfy the needs of the "ticking bomb" fantasy scenario, but it would not be waterboarding, and I would want to know that it was not legal. pl

07 November 2007

"So what sort of force should the United States leave behind in Iraq to contain AQI? Colonel Pat Lang, a former top official at the Defense Intelligence Agency who is a critic of the Bush administration (and an Arabic speaker), argues that the United States should at a minimum leave a force of around 30,000, including a reinforced division of around 20,000 soldiers, thousands to handle supply and logistics, and a Special Forces component of around 500. In addition to combating Al Qaeda, such a force would have to perform an array of tasks, including protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and gathering critical intelligence on the ground that cannot be collected effectively from neighboring countries. This September Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came up with a similar estimate for the residual force needed in Iraq, proposing a long-term force of at least 17,500 combat troops." Bergen and Cruikshank

I suppose I should explain the logic of my numbers again. I think the great "bulk" of the coalition force in Iraq should be gone by the mid-term US election of 2010. My estimate of what would make a reasonable residual force after that is based on the assumption that there would be an Iraqi government considered legitimate by the US and the UN and that government would want a continuing US presence for a few additional years. I would not think it wise to keep the residual force in Iraq more than five additional years (i.e. until no longer than 2015). Assuming (plans are built on assumptions) that this Iraqi govenment wants the US to continue training its troops, then it follows from that that there will have to be some hundreds of trainers, hundreds more of logistics people (some may be civilians) and therefore a robust security force to defend those people as well as the embassy crowd.

Military plans should be built to enable success and survival under the most adverse conditions imaginable. To do otherwise is to invite disaster. The "worst case" in Iraq would involve a general uprising against our remaining forces with the active intervention (direct or indirect) of Iran. A planning assumption like that is not a prediction. It is merely a planning assumption. With such an assumption and the need based on that assumption of defending our people and securing supply and exit routes from Iraq, I estimate that a reinforced division of troops (around 20,000) would be needed. pl

04 November 2007

"Israel and the Palestinians are still at odds over a joint document for the conference, which would serve as a launch pad for negotiations on core issues such as borders and the fate of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees.

Israel has insisted that any future agreement be put into effect only after the Palestinians met their obligations under a U.S.-backed peace "road map" charting reciprocal steps towards statehood.

The 2003 blueprint requires Palestinians to crack down on militants and for Israel to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and remove dozens of outposts set up without Israeli government permission." NY Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"core issues such as borders and the fate of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees" Oh! Is that all?

This is a sick joke. The United States still does not "get" the picture on the Arab/Israeli problem. The truth is that the two groups are, in reality, unwilling to share "Eretz Israel/Ard Filastiin between them. There is no good will in either group toward the other except in the hearts of a valiant and persistent few. Diplomacy in pursuit of a genuine peace is an illusion brought on by the brilliant tactical maneuvering and cynical information operations of the disputants.

Rice is merely preparing the ground for the final destruction of her reputation at Annapolis. Dennis Ross experienced a similar met-down at Camp David 2 when he egregiously and massively over-reached. He survived, but then, he had more faithful friends than Rice is likely to have. Bye Bye Nobel Prize.

The United States has far more serious problems in the Levant than the pursuit of this chimera. The real "long pole in the tent" is the Israeli nuclear "force de frappe" and the circumstances under which Israel might feel compelled to use it with or without American knowledge or agreement.

The Syrian air strike farce is not re-assuring in this matter. It is increasingly clear that the target was insignificant and that the motivation for the attack is buried in the collective Israeli psychology of insecurity, siege and unwillingness to rely on anyone else (including the US) for anything.

The US should stop worrying about diplomacy among the mischievous and start worrying more about possible strategic catastrophe. pl

01 November 2007

The State Department has been having a tough time getting enough of its people to go and serve in Iraq. Because of this "the department" is thinking of giving its employees the choice of accepting such assignments or losing their jobs. Interesting. I find it particularly interesting becasue of all the good and brave Foreign service officers whom I have known. Interesting and sad.

The State Department has several "classes" of employees. First, there is the "Foreign Service." These are the carefully screened and competitively selected (allowing for affirmative action) members of the career "diplomatic service." They are supposedly commissioned officers of the United States. They are not members of the uniformed services, but nevertheless are actually something more than mere employees. Like soldiers they are sworn to their duty when commissioned. Evidently, that responsibility sits lightly on some of them. These folks receive large overseas bonuses depending on the "hardship" of the post. In Iraq, the bonuses when added together amount to something close to 100% of pay. Then there are also benefits provided with regard to the education of children in very nice schools, sometimes in Europe, etc.

Then, there are civil servants employed by "the department." They have a plausible case if they object to involuntary assignments. They did not sign up for that. They signed up to work in the States.

"Who will raise our children?" That's a good question. The "grunts," horse soldiers, marines, air crew, etc., have been asking that question since time immemorial. There are various answers, none of them good.

"Such an assignment is equivalent to a sentence of death." A long serving Foreign Service officer said this yesterday in a meeting protesting this "injustice." Interesting. You can take all the "fallen" of the civilian parts of the government from all the years of the republic and write all their names on a wall together and the numbers will look ridiculous when compared to the Army's dead in one day on many, many occasions.